---
title: "An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English — Brendel 2019"
description: "The paper examines how English numeral quantifiers take scope. 37 references. Among them: 6."
authors: ["Cole Ira Brendel"]
year: 2019
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5211/"
doi: "10.5334/gjgl.391"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brendel-2019-investigation-numeral-quantifiers-english/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brendel-2019-investigation-numeral-quantifiers-english/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2019/page/8/) / An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English

# An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English

**Authors:** Cole Ira Brendel · **Year:** 2019 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2019/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.391) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5211/galley/12622/download) · [DOI 10.5334/gjgl.391](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.391) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2972085771)

**Citations:** 6 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary

The paper examines how English numeral quantifiers take scope. It asks whether bare numerals ("two") and modified numerals ("at least two") can take inverse scope, and whether that scope can extend beyond their own clause. Three theories make different predictions: the Quantifier Raising approach of May (1985) combined with Fox's (2000) Scope Economy, the Feature Checking account of Beghelli & Stowell (1997), and Winter's (1997) Choice Functions. The author argues that earlier experiments were flawed by "Reinhart's Riddle": an inverse reading of ∀…∃ sentences entails the surface reading, so a picture that fits the inverse reading also fits the surface one. To avoid this, the author built sentence-picture verification stimuli in which the inverse reading is the only way a sentence can be true, and speakers rated the sentences. In Experiment 1, bare numerals were somewhat less acceptable under inverse scope, which is the opposite of what Feature Checking predicts. Experiment 2 showed that numeral scope stays within its clause, which counts against Choice Functions. The author concludes that a QR account with Scope Economy fits the data best.

## Key points

- Three theories are compared: QR with Scope Economy and Shortest Move, Feature Checking, and Choice Functions.
- The method is a Sentence-Picture Verification Task (SPVT) using simple shape pictures, such as circles placed above triangles. Each picture separates the referents, so only a distributive interpretation is possible.
- Experiment 1 found a simple main effect of quantifier type: under inverse scope, modified numerals were rated higher than bare numerals. Feature Checking predicts that modified numerals should lack inverse readings, so this contradicts it.
- Experiment 2 found no extra-clausal scope for numerals. Modified numerals again scored somewhat higher (mean 2.79 vs 2.56), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.320).
- The author explains the absence of wide scope by the stimuli ruling out specific/referential readings. A possible reason for the bare/modified asymmetry is that bare numerals prefer cumulative readings (Ussery 2008), which the paper leaves open for further research.

## Interesting ideas
- A test item can only show that a reader accessed a reading if that reading alone makes the item true; when one reading entails another, a "yes" answer proves nothing.
- For ∀∃ sentences, a situation where everyone relates to the same object is just one case of the surface reading, so a confirming picture does not tell the two readings apart.
- Scope Economy allows a scope shift only when the shift changes the meaning.
- Numeral indefinites stay inside their clause unless the context makes them specific or referential.
- Bare and modified numerals may not behave alike: "two" and "at least two" differed in acceptability and possibly in their preference for cumulative readings.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (learn): Scope and quantifier evaluation sets should include items where only the inverse reading holds, plus negative controls where only the surface reading holds, so a correct answer actually reflects the intended interpretation.
- **I2** (answer): When a reader checks a statement against the world of a text, it should report whether the evidence picks out one scope reading or fits both, rather than claiming one interpretation.
- **I3** (frames): The system should generate an alternative quantifier-scope frame only when its truth conditions differ from the surface one, which keeps the candidate set small and each choice explainable.
- **I4** (world): Numeral entities should be scoped to their clause by default, with wider scope allowed only when there are explicit cues of specificity, such as a previously mentioned or presupposed unique referent.
- **I5** (world): Bare and modified numerals should be kept as distinct quantifier types in the measures/values layer, with separate collective, cumulative, and distributive defaults, rather than collapsing both into the number 2.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Utah](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-utah/) — University, Salt Lake City, United States · 38 works · 5,925 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 930 works · [🧠 Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/) · 186 works · [🧠 Cognitive Neuroscience](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/neuroscience/cognitive-neuroscience/) · 185 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,379 works

## Cite

Cite as: Cole Ira Brendel. 2019. An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{brendel2019investigation,
  title = {{An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English}},
  author = {Cole Ira Brendel},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.391},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.391}
}
```

- [← previous The Inception Team at NSURL-2019 Task 8: Semantic Question Similarity in Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/theiabat-2019-inception-team-nsurl-2019-task/)
- [next → Apertium-fin-eng–Rule-based Shallow Machine Translation for WMT 2019 Shared Task](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/pirinen-2019-apertium-fin-eng-rule-based/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2019/page/8/)

## References

37 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Beghelli, Filippo & Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope taking, 71–107. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3 Carnie, Andrew. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction. Marblehead, MA: John Wiley & Sons. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3)
2. Chemla, Emmanuel & Lewis Bott. 2015. Using structural priming to study scopal representations and operations. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 157–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ LING_a_00178 Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Current Studies in Linguistics Series 45. 133. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/)
3. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cinque%2C+Guglielmo%2E+1999%2E+Adverbs+and+functional+heads%3A+A+cross%2Dlinguistic+perspective%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
4. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Diesing%2C+Molly%2E+1992%2E+Indefinites+20%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
5. Efron, Bradley. 1992. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. In Breakthroughs in statistics, 569–593. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_41 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_41)
6. Fodor, Janet Dean & Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and philosophy 5(3). 355–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351459 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351459)
7. Forster, Kenneth I. & Jonathan C. Forster. 2003. DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers 35(1). 116–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195503)
8. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fox%2C+Danny%2E+2000%2E+Economy+and+semantic+interpretation%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
9. Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding minimalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511840678 Ionin, Tania. 2010. The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation. Natural Language Semantics 18(3). 295–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9057-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9057-3)
10. Jones, Eric, Travis Oliphant, Pearu Peterson et al. 2001. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python. [http://www.scipy.org/](http://www.scipy.org/). [↗](http://www.scipy.org/)
11. Kiss, Katalin É. & Jürgen Pafel. 2017. Quantifier scope ambiguities. Unpublished ms. Downloadable from: http://www.unistuttgart.de/ilg/sites/pafel/Dateien/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom005)
12. Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Unpublished ms. Downloadable from: [https://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/5/](https://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/5/). [↗](https://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/5/)
13. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. On the plurality of verbs. Semantics Archive. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kratzer%2C+Angelika%2E+2005%2E+On+the+plurality+of+verbs%2E+Semantics+Archive%2E)
14. Liu, Feng-Hsi. 1997. Scope and specificity 16. John Benjamins Publishing. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liu%2C+Feng%2DHsi%2E+1997%2E+Scope+and+specificity+16%2E+John+Benjamins+Publishing%2E)
15. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=May%2C+Robert%2E+1977%2E+The+grammar+of+quantification%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
16. May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation 12. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=May%2C+Robert%2E+1985%2E+Logical+form%3A+Its+structure+and+derivation+12%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
17. McKinney, Wes. 2011. Pandas: A foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python for High Performance and Scientific Computing 14. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McKinney%2C+Wes%2E+2011%2E+Pandas%3A+A+foundational+Python+library+for+data+analysis+and+statistics%2E+Python+for+High+Performance+and+Scientific+Computing+14%2E)
18. Michaelis, Laura & Hartwell Francis. 2007. Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. The grammar pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel 155. 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.04mic [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.04mic)
19. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, 221–242. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10)
20. Nouwen, Rick. 2015. Foundations of semantics I: Truth-conditions, entailment and logic. Retrieved on October 16, 2016 3. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nouwen%2C+Rick%2E+2015%2E+Foundations+of+semantics+I%3A+Truth%2Dconditions%2C+entailment+and+logic%2E+Retrieved+on+October+16%2C+2016+3%2E)
21. Pedregosa, Fernando, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Oliver Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot & Édouard Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12. 2825–2830. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pedregosa%2C+Fernando%2C+Ga%C3%ABl+Varoquaux%2C+Alexandre+Gramfort%2C+Vincent+Michel%2C+Bertrand+Thirion%2C+Oliver+Grisel%2C+Mathieu+Blondel%2C+Peter+Prettenhofer%2C+Ron+Weiss%2C+Vincent+Dubourg%2C+Jake+Vanderplas%2C+Alexandre+Pa)
22. Pérez, Fernando & Brian E Granger. 2007. IPython: A system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science & Engineering 9(3). 21–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2007.53 Raffray, Claudine N. & Martin J. Pickering. 2010. How do people construct logical form during language comprehension? Psychological Science 21(8). 1090–1097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610375446 Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610375446)
23. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and philosophy 20(4). 335–397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1005349801431 Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001)
24. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ross%2C+John+Robert%2E+1967%2E+Constraints+on+variables+in+syntax%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
25. Ruys, Eddy. 2002. Wide scope indefinites: Genealogy of a mutant meme or: How Tanya Reinhart made an innocent observation difficult to follow, and how a generation of linguists managed to get it wrong. Unpublished ms. Downloadable from: [http://www.let.uu.nl/~Eddy.Ruys/personal/download/indefinites.pdf](http://www.let.uu.nl/~Eddy.Ruys/personal/download/indefinites.pdf). [↗](http://www.let.uu.nl/~Eddy.Ruys/personal/download/indefinites.pdf)
26. Ruys, Eddy & Yoad Winter. 2011. Quantifier scope in formal linguistics. In Handbook of philosophical logic, 159–225. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_3)
27. Seabold, Skipper & Josef Perktold. 2010. [Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/seabold-2010-statsmodels-econometric-statistical-modeling-python/). In Proceedings of the 9th python in science conference 57. 61. Austin, TX: SciPy.
28. Shlonsky, Ur. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(6). 417–429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00202.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00202.x)
29. Syrett, Kristen. 2015. QR out of a tensed clause: Evidence from antecedent-contained deletion. Ratio 28(4). 395–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12107 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12107)
30. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Szabolcsi%2C+Anna%2E+2010%2E+Quantification%2E+Cambridge%2C+UK%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
31. Ussery, Cherlon. 2008. Processing plural DPs: Collective, cumulative, and distributive interpretations. Unpublished ms. Downloadable from: [https://apps.carleton.edu/people/cussery/assets/Processing_Plural_DPs.pdf](https://apps.carleton.edu/people/cussery/assets/Processing_Plural_DPs.pdf). [↗](https://apps.carleton.edu/people/cussery/assets/Processing_Plural_DPs.pdf)
32. Van Der Walt, Stefan, S. Chris Colbert & Gaël Varoquaux. 2011. The NumPy array: A structure for efficient numerical computation. Computing in Science & Engineering 13(2). 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2011.37)
33. Waskom, Michael, Olga Botvinnik, Drew O’Kane, Paul Hobson, Joel Ostblom, Saulius Lukauskas, David C. Gemperline, Tom Augspurger, Yaroslav Halchenko, John B. Cole, Jordi Warmenhoven, Julian de Ruiter, Cameron Pye, Stephan Hoyer, Jake Vanderplas, Santi Villalba, Gero Kunter, Eric Quintero, Pete Bachant, Marcel Martin, Kyle Meyer, Alistair Miles, Yoav Ram, Thomas Brunner, Tal Yarkoni, Mike Lee Williams, Constantine Evans, Clark Fitzgerald, Brian & Adel Qalieh. 2018. Seaborn: Statistical data v isualization. Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization Seaborn 0 5. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Waskom%2C+Michael%2C+Olga+Botvinnik%2C+Drew+O%E2%80%99Kane%2C+Paul+Hobson%2C+Joel+Ostblom%2C+Saulius+Lukauskas%2C+David+C%2E+Gemperline%2C+Tom+Augspurger%2C+Yaroslav+Halchenko%2C+John+B%2E+Cole%2C+Jordi+Warmenhoven%2C+Julian+de+Ruiter%2C+)
34. Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(4). 399–467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005354323136 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005354323136)
35. How to cite this article: Brendel, Cole Ira. 2019. [An investigation of numeral quantifiers in English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brendel-2019-investigation-numeral-quantifiers-english/). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 104. 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.391 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.391)
36. Published: 05 September 2019 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Published%3A+05+September+2019)
37. Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS [↗](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

*Updated 2 November 2026*